They know from experience that drugs help them or they wouldn't dope - which they have done for decades, and in their thousands. Nearly one in two championship athletes have doped. But you - who have never doped or known any professed dopers - know better than they. How - when you have none of their experience? (And neither do your favored "researchers").
Who are "they"? I know you don't really know.
What do "they" really know? I know you don't really know.
Was "their" experience that drugs genuinely helped them? I know you don't really know.
Are "they" the very same athletes who made "monster drops in times and performances that used to be considered extraordinary". I know you don't really know.
I don't favor any "researchers" either. I know they don't really know.
What I also know is what the best distance athletes have historically run in the last 50-60 years.
What I also know is that you continue to preach that doping is a global problem, while "monster drops in times and performances" are not global experience.
Your arguments for fscepticism about doping are based on the fact that dopers are able to effectively conceal their use.
This only highlights your inability to comprehend, and accurately repeat, what "my arguments" really are.
The "fact that dopers are able to effectively conceal their use" only confirms my conclusion that largely ignorant doping worshipping fans like Armstronglivs, as well as former anti-doping heads, like David Howman, don't really know who is doping nor whether the dopers are the same athletes who are performing. On a scale of 1-100, your knowledge and WADA's knowledge, is less than 1-2.
But the ignorance of fans and anti-doping heads do not form the basis of my scepticism regarding performance enhancement for distance running events.
The basis for my scepticism regarding performance enhancement is the lack of predicted globally distributed performances from allegedly super-powerful drugs allegedly abused by athletes globally.
They know from experience that drugs help them or they wouldn't dope - which they have done for decades, and in their thousands. Nearly one in two championship athletes have doped. But you - who have never doped or known any professed dopers - know better than they. How - when you have none of their experience? (And neither do your favored "researchers").
Who are "they"? I know you don't really know.
What do "they" really know? I know you don't really know.
Was "their" experience that drugs genuinely helped them? I know you don't really know.
Are "they" the very same athletes who made "monster drops in times and performances that used to be considered extraordinary". I know you don't really know.
I don't favor any "researchers" either. I know they don't really know.
What I also know is what the best distance athletes have historically run in the last 50-60 years.
What I also know is that you continue to preach that doping is a global problem, while "monster drops in times and performances" are not global experience.
I didn't claim "monster drops in times". You don't know which commenter you are responding to. Figures.
But I do maintain doping continues unchecked. That is also the consensus of those like Howman, who say doping is ahead of antidoping and far more dope than are caught.
The rest of your comment about "they" shows you don't have a clue about doping in the sport.
Your arguments for fscepticism about doping are based on the fact that dopers are able to effectively conceal their use.
This only highlights your inability to comprehend, and accurately repeat, what "my arguments" really are.
The "fact that dopers are able to effectively conceal their use" only confirms my conclusion that largely ignorant doping worshipping fans like Armstronglivs, as well as former anti-doping heads, like David Howman, don't really know who is doping nor whether the dopers are the same athletes who are performing. On a scale of 1-100, your knowledge and WADA's knowledge, is less than 1-2.
But the ignorance of fans and anti-doping heads do not form the basis of my scepticism regarding performance enhancement for distance running events.
The basis for my scepticism regarding performance enhancement is the lack of predicted globally distributed performances from allegedly super-powerful drugs allegedly abused by athletes globally.
Howman and antidoping experts estimate that far more athletes dope than are caught. They also say that it is at the top of sport. Unless doping doesn't aid performance, it must be logically construed that dopers are likely to be found amongst the most successful. It does aid performance, or after decades of use it would be seen as no more performance-enhancing than Popeye's spinach.
What do "they" really know? I know you don't really know.
Was "their" experience that drugs genuinely helped them? I know you don't really know.
Are "they" the very same athletes who made "monster drops in times and performances that used to be considered extraordinary". I know you don't really know.
I don't favor any "researchers" either. I know they don't really know.
What I also know is what the best distance athletes have historically run in the last 50-60 years.
What I also know is that you continue to preach that doping is a global problem, while "monster drops in times and performances" are not global experience.
I didn't claim "monster drops in times". You don't know which commenter you are responding to. Figures.
But I do maintain doping continues unchecked. That is also the consensus of those like Howman, who say doping is ahead of antidoping and far more dope than are caught.
The rest of your comment about "they" shows you don't have a clue about doping in the sport.
It's you who fail to realize I am not talking about "doping in the sport" per se, but talking about a "new PED" which can cause "monster drops in times and performances that used to be considered extraordinary". That is the thread we are in now.
If you are responding to me -- and you are -- that is the topic. Or alternatively "When will we ever find out of the old PEDs are truly performance enhancing?"
You didn't dispute that you don't know any of these things "I know you don't really know".
Here, I don't really need a clue about "doping in the sport", because I have accepted without contest all of your clueless claims about the existence and presence of old and new doping in sport, among athletes from all nations in all sports, and I have accepted your claims that even the top anti-doping ex-chiefs don't really have a clue about the true extent.
But what does that have to do with elite distance running performance? I know you don't know.
Howman and antidoping experts estimate that far more athletes dope than are caught. They also say that it is at the top of sport. Unless doping doesn't aid performance, it must be logically construed that dopers are likely to be found amongst the most successful. It does aid performance, or after decades of use it would be seen as no more performance-enhancing than Popeye's spinach.
Even the best experts have to estimate because they don't really have a clue either, about the true extent.
But I agree with you that the belief in doping among athletes and their coaches is widespread and deep and goes to the top, and has been for decades.
Your inference and pseudo-logical rationalization that doping aids performance is just your inference and pseudo-logical rationalization, as a gullible fan without a clue -- this is not a substitute for knowledge.
Even the best experts have to estimate because they don't really have a clue either, about the true extent.
But I agree with you that the belief in doping among athletes and their coaches is widespread and deep and goes to the top, and has been for decades.
Your inference and pseudo-logical rationalization that doping aids performance is just your inference and pseudo-logical rationalization, as a gullible fan without a clue -- this is not a substitute for knowledge.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Rekrunner. The psuedo-intellectual cr.ap above doesn't cut it.
No idea who you are/what your background is. But a mitochondrial derived peptide can't increase AICAR through the roof. AICAR is a synthetic substance (and banned drug) designed as an analog of AMP which will activate cell signalling networks. So there is no "baseline" AICAR to increase. Or are you saying that MOTS-C (which to my knowledge has only ever been used scientifically in cells and mice) and AICAR can act synergistically?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.